NanoEthics

, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp 31–46

If and Then: A Critique of Speculative NanoEthics

Original paper

Abstract

Most known technology serves to ingeniously adapt the world to the physical and mental limitations of human beings. Humankind has acquired awesome power with its rather limited means. Nanotechnological capabilities further this power. On some accounts, however, nanotechnological research will contribute to a rather different kind of technological development, namely one that changes human beings so as to remove or reduce their physical and mental limitations. The prospect of this technological development has inspired a fair amount of ethical debate. Here, proponents and opponents of such visions of human enhancement are criticized alike for engaging in speculative ethics. This critique exposes a general pattern that extends to other nano-, bio-, or neuroethical debates. While it does not apply to all discussions of “enhancement technologies” it does apply to all ethical discourse that constructs and validates an incredible future which it only then proceeds to endorse or critique. This discourse violates conditions of intelligibility, squanders the scarce and valuable resource of ethical concern, and misleads by casting remote possibilities or philosophical thought-experiments as foresight about likely technical developments. In effect, it deflects consideration from the transformative technologies of the present.

Keywords

Responsible ethics Imagined futures overwhelm the actual present Technology that adapts the world to limited humans vs. technology as a means to transcend human limits Enhancement effects vs. the enhancement of human capabilities Critiques of the human enhancement discourse Scenario methods Presuppositions vs. long-term consequences of research Identifying potentially transformative research Moving beyond consequentalism and deontology 

References

  1. 1.
    Amato I (1999) Nanotechnology – shaping the world atom by atom. National Science and Technology Council, Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and Technology, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anders G (1956) Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anders G (1972) Endzeit und Zeitende: Gedanken über die atomare Situation. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bostrom N, Toby O (2006) The reversal test: eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics. Ethics 116:656–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bostrom N (2006) Welcome to a world of exponential change. In: Miller P, Wilsdon J (eds.) Better humans? The politics of human enhancement and life extension. DEMOS, London, pp 40–50Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruland K, Mowery, DC (2004) Innovation through time. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery D, Nelson R (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press 2004, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bunting M (2006) There is no stop button in the race for human re-engineering. The Guardian, Monday, 30 January 2006Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caplan A (2006) Is it wrong to try to improve human nature? In: Miller P, Wilsdon J (eds) Better humans? The politics of human enhancement and life extension. DEMOS, London, pp 31–39Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dupuy J-P (2005) The philosophical foundations of nanoethics: arguments for a method. Lecture at the Nanoethics Conference, University of South Carolina, 2–5 March 2005Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gehring P (2006) Was ist Biomacht? Vom zweifelhaften Mehrwert des Lebens. Campus, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green J (2005) Presentation at the key technologies conference. DG Research, Brussels (September 19)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grunwald A (2004) Vision assessment as a new element of the technology futures analysis toolbox. In: Proceedings of the EU-US scientific seminar: new technology foresight, forecasting & assessment methods, Seville, 13–14 May 2004Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grunwald A (2006) Nanotechnologie als Chiffre der Zukunft. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz A (eds) Nanotechnologien im Kontext: Philosophische, ethische, gesellschaftliche Perspektiven. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 49–80Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habermas J (2005) Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur: Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik? Suhrkamp, Frankfurt. Compare the English edition The future of human nature. Blackwell, 2003, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hagner M (2006) Der Geist bei der Arbeit. Historische Untersuchungen zur Hirnforschung. Wallstein, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hård M, Jamison A (2005) Hubris and hybrids: a cultural history of technology and science. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harris J (2006) Enhancement, justice, and rights. Princeton Lectures, James Martin Institute, 14–16 March 2006Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    HLEG (High Level Expert Group) Foresighting the new technology wave (2004) Converging technologies: shaping the future of European societies. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxemburgGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hughes J, LaTorra M (2006) WTA NEWS 3 November 2006: News of the World Transhumanist Association http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/rss_2.0/ accessed 14 February 2007
  20. 20.
    Hutchins E (1996) Cognition in the wild. MIT, BostonGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jamison A (2006) Hubris or hybrids? On the cultural assessment of nanotechnology. EASST Review 25(3). http://www.easst.net/review/oct2006/jamison accessed 14 February 2007
  22. 22.
    Kurzweil R (2000) The age of spiritual machines. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kurzweil R (2005) The singularity is near. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Miller P, Wilsdon J (2006) Stronger, longer, smarter, faster. In: Miller P, Wilsdon J (eds) Better humans? The politics of human enhancement and life extension. DEMOS, 2006, London, pp 13–27Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller P, Wilsdon J (2006) The man who wants to live forever. In: Miller P, Wilsdon J (eds) Better humans? The politics of human enhancement and life extension. DEMOS, London, pp 51–58Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moor J, Weckert J (2004) Nanoethics: assessing the nanoscale from an ethical point of view. In: Baird D, Nordmann A, Schummer J (eds) Discovering the nanoscale. IOS, Amsterdam, pp 301–311Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Müller S (2006) Minimal-invasive und nanoskalige Therapien von Gehirnerkrankungen: Eine medizinethische Diskussion. In: Nordmann A, Schummer J, Schwarz A (eds) Nanotechnologien im Kontext: Philosophische, ethische, gesellschaftliche Perspektiven. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Berlin, pp 345–370Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nordmann A (2005) Wohin die Reise geht: Zeit und Raum der Nanotechnologie. In: Gamm G, Hetzel A (eds.) Unbestimmtheitssignaturen der Technik. Transcript, Bielefeld, pp 103–123; English version. No future for nanotechnology? Historical development vs. global expansion. forthcoming in Jotterand F (ed) Nanotechnology and nanoethics: framing the field. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nordmann A (forthcoming) Ignorance at the heart of science? Incredible narratives on brain-machine interfaces. Forthcoming in a volume edited by Johannes Ach, MünsterGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nordmann A (forthcoming) Tomorrow’s people, today’s challenge. Forthcoming in a collection of contributions to the 2006 James Martin Institute’s World Forum on Science and CivilizationGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2002) Converging technologies for improving human performance. National Science Foundation/Department of Commerce, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sandel M (2004) The case against perfection. Atl Mon 293:51–62Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Treder M (2004) Emancipation from death. In: Immortality Institute (ed) The scientific conquest of death. Libros en Red., Buenos Aries, pp 187–196. http://www.imminst.org/book1/ accessed 14 February 2007
  34. 34.
    Urquhart A (2004) Complexity. In: Floridi L (ed) The Blackwell guide to philosophy of computing and information. Blackwell, Malden, pp 18–27Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wilsdon J (2006) Who would not seize the chance to live to 150? Financial Times, 7 February 2007Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Workshop (2006) State-of-the-art and socio-economic aspects of brain–machine (BMI) & brain–computer interfaces (BCI). unpublished draft minutesGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für PhilosophieTechnische Universität Darmstadt, SchlossDarmstadtGermany

Personalised recommendations